Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

As required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717(d)(1)(G), the district court in this case sentenced Defendant, in part, to lifetime postrelease supervision for his convictions of three counts of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) the lifetime postrelease supervision sentence was not disproportionate to the seriousness of Defendant's crime, was not grossly disproportionate to the sentences imposed for other crimes in Kansas or similar crimes in other states, and was not categorically unconstitutional; and (2) the district court did not have discretion to sentence Defendant to a postrelease supervision term of twenty-four months, as there was no reasonable doubt that the Legislature intended that the more severe penalty of lifetime postrelease supervision must be imposed when a defendant is sentenced for a sexually violent crime. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years on each count to run concurrently. The court did not order restitution at sentencing. After Defendant filed his notice of appeal, the district court entered an order establishing restitution. Defendant appealed, contending that restitution be ordered before imposition of sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to impose restitution after imposing sentence; and (2) Defendant's argument that the sentencing court erred in including lifetime electronic monitoring in the journal entry of judgment was moot because the error was corrected in an amended journal entry of judgment. View "State v. Long" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the felony murder of his son and of the child abuse of two of his other children. Edgar was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Edgar's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming, among other things, that his counsel was ineffective during closing argument. The district court summarily denied the motion. A panel of the court of appeals reversed without discussing the second prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, instead remanding for an evidentiary hearing. The State appealed, claiming that the court of appeals erred when it did not consider the prejudice prong of the Strickland/Chamberlain test. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district judge's denial of Defendant's motion, holding (1) the court of appeals could and should have reviewed the district judge's ruling on the second prong of the Strickland/Chamberlain test, but (2) under the Court's review, the district judge correctly concluded that Defendant failed to establish prejudice. View "Edgar v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties. Defendant challenged, among other things, the district judge's doubling of his twenty-five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence under Jessica's Law because of his status as a persistent sex offender under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4704(j), the persistent sex offender statute that permits doubling of a maximum presumptive sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence imposed by the district judge, holding that the persistent sex offender did not apply to double the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years' imprisonment for an off-grid Jessica's Law offense pursuant to section 21-4704(j). Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant Essex Sims directly appealed the summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. Defendant asserted five claims of error, four challenging his convictions, not his sentence, and the fifth contending that the district court's order was unclear as to whether his sentences were consecutive or concurrent. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial, holding (1) the four claims attacking Defendant's convictions were not properly raised, as a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to challenge a conviction; and (2) there was no reasonable interpretation that supported Defendant's fifth argument. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to consecutive hard twenty life and 247-month sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and consecutive sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Parks' post-Miranda silence; (2) the violation of an order in limine prohibiting reference to Defendant's possession of illegal drugs did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial; (3) Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated by limitation of his counsel's cross-examination of a State's witness about the witness' immigration status; (4) the district judge did not err in including an Allen-type instruction; (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; and (6) the district judge did not err in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw an Alford plea to one count of sexual battery. By entering an Alford plea, Defendant pleaded guilty without admitting he committed the crime. Defendant claimed on appeal that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because the trial court erred by accepting his plea without establishing a factual basis for it, and he felt pressured to enter the plea because his attorney had not subpoenaed any trial witnesses. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to permit Defendant to withdraw his plea because the district court erred by not establishing the factual basis for the plea as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(a)(4). View "State v. Ebaben" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of hydrocodone under Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-4160(a), a severity level 4 drug felony. Defendant argued that eight Lortab pills in his possession were schedule III rather than schedule II drugs and that section 65-4160(a) was therefore inapplicable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the formulation of the Lortab in Defendant's possession in this case qualified it as a schedule III rather than a schedule II drug; but (2) as section 65-4160(a)'s prohibition is not limited to drugs on one or the other of these schedules, the district court did not err in finding that possession of Lortab was a proscribed felony under section 65-4160(a). View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the imposition of three life sentences with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years following his plea of guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant contended that the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's imposition of Defendant's sentences, holding (1) Defendant's sentences did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment; and (2) the district court did not commit reversible error when it denied Defendant's motion for departure from the hard twenty-five life sentence applicable under Jessica's Law. View "State v. Woodard" on Justia Law

Defendant in this case was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child less than fourteen years of age. The district court denied Defendant's motion to depart from the hard twenty-five life sentence provided for in Jessica's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because reasonable people would agree with the district court's determination that the mitigating factors presented by Defendant were not substantial and compelling in light of the circumstances of the case, which included the fact that the victim of a six-year-old autistic child who had been in Defendant's care at the time of the crime, expert testimony supported the conclusion that Defendant was likely to reoffend, and there was evidence of factors that supported the conclusion that Defendant was not amenable to rehabilitation. View "State v. Salinas" on Justia Law